contrived climbs (aka responsibility in establishing climbs)

[Matt_Anderson]

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pope's response got me thinking about the "contrived" issue. I guess I was getting at this when I sent out the post about Lingerie. I was pretty sure the book rating only made sense if you kept yourself from using holds that are easily reachable. In one sense this seems foreign to climbing on real rock, and more like climbing in a gym, hence my taped holds comment.But...I got to thinking . Where do we draw the line? It seem obvious in some instances, like a problem at the UW rock with giant verboten hold that makes the problem much more difficult because you need to do some serious contortions to avoid touching it. What about the opposite side of the spectrum though? You [it]could[\it] say that every climb on Snow Creek Wall is "contrived" because you could much more easily walk up the back side. Is the Remorse start to Outer Space contrived because there's an easier way to get to Two Tree Ledge? Is Pony Keg at Vantage contrived if you resolve to not clip the bolts on Whipsaw? What makes something "contrived"? Does it matter? Not really, but it might be an interesting discussion.

What do you think?

---

New subject to prevent thread creep.

For me, the proper rating of a roped climb is determined by the difficulty of the easiest path up that ascends the given area of rock without straying so far from the protection that the fall potential is increased to an unacceptable level. Of course, the danger of what an unnaceptable level varies with the climber.

The whole point of rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1). For me, 2) is the most beautiful and rewarding part of climbing.

Most contrived climbs are a result of: 1) Crowding to many routes into a given area of rock; or 2) The desire of someone to put up a difficult test-piece in spite of the fact that a particular area of rock is more suited to easier climbing.

OVER CROWDING. As a general proposition, if you can easily traverse over to another line of bolts and get protection or get in the way of another climber, than you added a line where there shouldn't be one. Not every inch of a crag needs to be bolted. The new route to the left of Rainy Day Women and to the right of the big dihedral on World Wall I at Little Si is a prime example. Anybody climbing that route gets in the way of people on the adjacent routes. For at least half of the climb it is easier to climb the holds on the adjacent routes while simultaneously clipping the bolts on the middle climb. It’s an eyesore and the person that established it should take it down and repair the bolt holes as well as possible. If the person really wanted to sample the few independent moves on the route, it could have been top roped (and the moves aren't even that good anyway.).

FIRST ASCENSCIONISTS IGNORING THE FLOW OF THE ROCK. A first ascensionist has a responsibility to those who follow to establish lines along natural paths. Bolting a 5.14 route, no matter how aesthetic the moves, and calling it 5.14 even though the rating requires you to refuse to touch the holds on a 5.10 four feet to the right is ridiculous. Doing so ruins the experience of those who follow the purer form of rock climbing and ascend the natural line of weakness.

THE ALTERNATIVE: Routes that have appealing moves, but are so close as to not be considered truly independent should be left as topropes. Take the following hypothetical:

If it is easier to go five feet to your right, climb up for 8 feet, and then rejoin the bolted line by traversing five feet to the left, than the proper rating for that climb is how hard it is with all of the f'd up traversing. I would even apply this rating if the above statement were true for every bolt on a fourteen-bolt pitch.

Obviously, ascending a route in this manner is unaesthetic. The fault lies in the first ascencionist who ignored the natural flow of the rock. S/he should have bolted the easier moves to the right and installed top-rope anchors (if necessary) over the fun, but contrived moves to the left.

Many people will say that’s ridiculous – you bolt the lines that are fun. I disagree. You bolt the lines that nature gives you. If they are anesthetic, then you are probably climbing at a crappy crag or a crag that is more suited to top-roping. Anything else reduces the outdoors to a climbing gym – the appropriate place to change holds in order to fit your idea of aesthetics.

Re Lingerie at Vantage: (disclaimer: I haven’t seen these climbs, this is only based on the descriptions given in the “perplexed” thread.) If a person wishes to sample the harder climbing on lingerie at .11d, they may, of course, do so, but I would say that they climbed a 5.easier via 5.11d holds/moves, not an 5.11d. If lingerie is a bolted climb, then I think it should be a top-rope and the (presumably) easier “sex party” should be the way to set up the top-rope. As mentioned above, some crags will just naturally be more suited to a greater percentage of top-ropes.

LETS CALL A SPADE A SPADE: I don’t have a guidebook in front of me, and I can’t recall specific examples, but it occurs to me that many of the climbs on the lower entablatures at Vantage are so close together that they would be considered contrived under the above definition. I think that is because people have so little respect for the rock at vantage that the damage caused by treating it like the plywood in a gym is less than the extra fun/ego boost they get from squeezing in another line. In some cases, that’s ok – for instance, the chipped quarry climbs in England. Its up to the local climbers in the area to determine if they think that their local crag is such a dung heap that they don’t mind bolting it to hell in order to satisfy there own short-term desire for a new route.

matt

[erik]

good topic matt

[chucK]

Dude that's MY topic

[erik]

good topic chucK

[Peter_Puget]

Matt -

Several times before I have suggested top ropes shpould be considered "real" routes and that they are the preferred alternative to over bolting. I would ask you how many times have you contacted or attempted to contact the people putting up these routes and told them of your viewpoint? What have their responses been?

[Matt_Anderson]

Yep, its Chuck's topic.

Any body wanna reply?

[Matt_Anderson]

I've seen the person taht I think is the first ascencionist since the route was put up and after I formed my opinion on it. I didn't say a thing. I wish I had.

matt

[Peter_Puget]

I sympathize with your conclusion but your reasoning drives me crazy. For example consider the following quote from your post:

Quote:“The whole point of rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1)”.

Imagine a boulderer who seeks contrived hard problems. He never trains to get stronger; doesn’t boulder enough to get stronger he simply tries to succeed at problems via better technique. I can see myself as such a character when I was studying hard and could get out very rarely.

Quote:“Doing so ruins the experience of those who follow the purer form of rock climbing and ascend the natural line of weakness.”

You practice a purer form of climbing? How do you judge purity? Years ago some climbers said essentially the same things about ropes and pitons? In their minds you are far from pure. How do you justify your actions in relation to their judgement?

I should note that in a thread about a year ago Dwayner and Pope were cheering me on after my comments regarding bolting at 38/Si.

[chucK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Anderson:

For me, the proper rating of a roped climb is determined by the difficulty of the easiest path up that ascends the given area of rock without straying so far from the protection that the fall potential is increased to an unacceptable level. Of course, the danger of what an unnaceptable level varies with the climber.

---

By this definition Lingerie could be given the harder grade if you defnine the "given area of rock" to exclude the Sex Party dihedral. Curiously enough, you can avoid the crux of Sex Party by diverting over to Lingerie. Perhaps there should be a new route in the next guide, Sexy Lingerie Party 5.9.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Anderson:

The whole point of rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1). For me, 2) is the most beautiful and rewarding part of climbing.

---

There are very few climbs that satisfy #2 until you start adding on restrictions. You could say that the only climb on Mt. Stuart that satisfies #2 is the Cascadian Couloir. All climbs are defined by drawing a path to some extent, after which you say "find the easiest way up" along this path. We call some climbs contrived when the defined path just gets too convoluted. Where this cutoff is is difficult to define.

Bolting is a way to define the path. Sometimes the bolts don't follow the easiest way to toprope a piece of rock [Cosmos at Smith], but if you really need the bolts to lead the section of rock then by default the bolt trail has defined the easiest path (for a leader).

I don't know where this fits in, but when Dean Potter soloed Astroman he apparently skipped one of the technical cruxes because there is an easier way if you don't mind not having any protection. Is Astroman contrived? Did Dean Potter climb Astroman?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Anderson:

FIRST ASCENSCIONISTS IGNORING THE FLOW OF THE ROCK. A first ascensionist has a responsibility to those who follow to establish lines along natural paths.

---

There are those who would argue that you cannot call it a natural path if it needs to be augmented with bolts.

Thanks Matt. Nice thread

[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: chucK ]

[Matt_Anderson]

Peter, Reread my post with the following in mind and it may not drive you crazy.

I'm only addressing roped climbing. The first line of my post concerns:

quote:

---

the proper rating of a roped climb

---

I'm not bagging on (or even discussing) boulderers. The discussion of a contrived line as it relates to boulderers doesn't have the same environmental or aesthetic concerns because they don't bolt. The only down side I'm criticizing is unecessary bolting.

That said, I think the ideas I propose represent a purer form are justified on the one hand based on environmental concerns and on the other because of my "ideal" for climbing:

1) Environmental reasons justify choosing not to overbolt: Choosing to toprope instead of bolt a climb that is to close to other climbs is "purer" because it is less of an eyesore and does less damage to the rock. It takes into account the aesthetic wishes of others before bolting another line to make yourself feel better.

2) My "ideal" of climbing justifies choosing not to bolt the difficult moves two feet away from the easy moves. As I said mistakenly attributed to being a bag on bouldering):

quote:

---

The whole point of [roped] rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1). For me, 2) is the most beautiful and rewarding part of climbing.

---

This is just my ideal and others may or may not buy into it. I think that it is purer because it follows the flow of the rock. Of course, anybody that chooses to clib on a section of rock and not bolt it can do so as they wish (boulders, top-ropers and those anticipating a pendulum). I just wish that if they want to ignore what nature gave them (the easy, natural way two feet to the right) and make climbing into an exercise in self-control (not grabbing those holds nearby) that they wouldn't screw up the rock doing so - they can do that inside.

[Peter_Puget]

Thanks for clarifying what you meant I do see considerable ambiguity it what you first wrote but understand what you mean now. I agree that much bolting is overboard and oddly given the outcry actually quite limited in scope. By that I mean limited to a few somewhat restricted areas.You still did not answer how you would justify your actions (or acceptance of actions such as bolting a natural line) to those who think that the use of ropes and pitons is not pure? Expand the question to include those who feel all bolts are bad regardless of the purity of the line. For example, Pope has previously said all rap bolting is improper for him it is an impure eyesore. Shouldn’t he expect that all such impure routes be removed? If I accept your personal ideal that “what is consistent with my personal viewpoint defines purity” I think he should.How do you suggest the various often mutually exclusive aesthetic viewpoints be reconciled?

By the way I think Chuck makes some very good points about the very high level of ambiguity involved here.

By the way you can always modify my example of the boulderer and change it to a roped climber. Here is a concrete example. Bircheff-Williams route in the Valley. I have done it several times once using pure stemming at the crux, another trying to use the tiny finger jams, doing the wide section past the crux as a lieback, doing it as a trad wide crack.

[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

[Matt_Anderson]

Oh for Christ’s sake. Ambiguity Shambiguity. Read my freakin’ post.I’m ambiguous? Read your own fuckin post.

The whole question came up because of questions at a crag that these days is primarily filled with bolted, single pitch climbs. It wasn’t talking about bouldering, mountaineering, soloing or hackey sack. As a result I posted about cragging. I'm just concerned with contrived, bolted, squeeze jobs, primarily at sport crags, because, hey, that's where they generally occur.

Incidently, I'm pretty damn sure that my proposed rule of thumb does not apply to hackey sack, So don't use it! You could get hurt!

Inherent in such a discussion is a belief that sport crags should exist, so while any discussion with that underlying assumption may hook Dwayner or Pope on some 50 pound test line, I'm not specifically trying to address an "all bolts or rap bolts are evil" concern. By the way, you’ll notice they didn’t bite. Why? Because I was talking about a freakin sport crag!

You read ambiguity into my post. This is the scope of my concern as defined in the original post:

quote:

---

the easiest path up that ascends the given area of rock without straying so far from the protection that the fall potential is increased to an unacceptable level.

---

Everything else, I would label contrived, if someone bolted it.

Chuck didn’t label anything ambiguous. He just talked about other possibilities. Well, to answer his queries, if there's protection between the cascadian coluoir and the N Ridge of Stuart, then I'm not saying that the N Ridge of Stuart is contrived. And since Dean Potter soloed the route, the whole worry about his particular sequence straying so far from the protection as to make the climb dangerous really doesn’t apply, does it? As I understand, if you protected the crack on A-man and climbed the face and fell, you hurt yourself. Well, then, while a bolt line up that particular face would be a crime (for other reasons), I would not label it contrived (although it would, in that setting, probably be a squeeze job).

Furthermore, I'm not talking about "acceptance of actions such as bolting a natural line." Are you saying that I implied I accept bolting naturally PROTECTED lines? What the fuck? Where the hell did you get that? I said that bolting a hard route to close to an easy line "ruins the experience of those who follow the purer form of rock climbing and ascend the natural line of weakness."

You state “You still did not answer how you would justify your actions (or acceptance of actions such as bolting a natural line) to those who think that the use of ropes and pitons is not pure?” What fucking actions? I simply labeled a climb contrived and bitched about a squeeze job!

And what’s with those continual rope and piton remarks? I have no idea if you think that others thought that ropes and pitons were the only pure way to climb or if they were the bastard way to climb. What’s the point? Pitons hurt the rock, try not to use them if you can. Ropes stop falls. Is it purer to climb without them? Sure. Does anybody (besides soloists and poor reasoning, nitpicky, to busy with school to climb so I boulder boulderers?) not use a rope?

And, yes, I do happen to think that climbing sans bolts is a purer form of climbing. I bet just about everyone does. But no where did I say that every less pure form of climbing should be removed just because its less pure. (otherwise, naked soloing would be the only rock climbing I would approve of – it’s the most pure – clothes are aid )

Finally, just in case you actually thought you had a valid point with your Birchef Williams idea, you don’t. Applying the first couple of paragraphs of my first post, if you bolted a line four feet away from the dihedral on the B-W, it would be a contrived squeeze job. Plus, someone would probably gang rape you for doing so.

Have nice day!

Ahhh. I feel better already!

[Matt_Anderson]

And another thing. It's a fucking cheater stick!

[Peter_Puget]

Originally posted by Matt Anderson:Furthermore, I'm not talking about "acceptance of actions such as bolting a natural line." Are you saying that I implied I accept bolting naturally PROTECTED lines? What the fuck? Where the hell did you get that? I said that bolting a hard route to close to an easy line "ruins the experience of those who follow the purer form of rock climbing and ascend the natural line of weakness." end quote

Jeesh Matt your are truly an idiot. I was in no way implying ypou accepted the bolting of a naturally protected line merely using your same terminology. And I wasn't even trying to bait Dwayner or Pope. Actually in effect I pretty much agree with those two - I just think their argumentation is wrong. Simply put you find something unacceptable and wish to dictate/judge others behavior yet you find no harm in doing what others may find equally unacceptable. I find much bolting unacceptable even the bolting of "natural lines." I do not think my dislike of this is justification for the elimination of bolting or the removal of bolted lines. Your equally arbitrary preference is no more valid justification for the elimination of what you call "contrived routes." Calling those pro contrived bolters a third position. I asked how to you reconcile all the positions and come to an agreeable understanding? Everyone pushing for their preferences is how the problem comes about in the first place. You accept the fact that sport crags should exist. I say there is no difference bewteen you and the contrived first ascentionist - you are both justifying your pathetic actions without regard to those who may be offended.

The thread came about in reference to a climb at the Middle East Wall an area of primarily naturally protected routes.

Quote continued: "Finally, just in case you actually thought you had a valid point with your Birchef Williams idea, you don’t. Applying the first couple of paragraphs of my first post, if you bolted a line four feet away from the dihedral on the B-W, it would be a contrived squeeze job." end quote

quote first paragraphs of first post:"New subject to prevent thread creep.

For me, the proper rating of a roped climb is determined by the difficulty of the easiest path up that ascends the given area of rock without straying so far from the protection that the fall potential is increased to an unacceptable level. Of course, the danger of what an unnaceptable level varies with the climber.

The whole point of rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1). For me, 2) is the most beautiful and rewarding part of climbing."

My BW example was and is still an example showing how your definition of the "whole point of rock climbing" was BS. I climbed the BW by a contrived manner that was not the easy way not to get stronger but to have fun. Your first paragraph deals with what rating should be assigned to a section of rock despite many variations being possible.

And it is a STICK CLIP! Silly Boy.

[Dru]

Hacky sac is contrived (cause you cant use your hands), but it is still fun.

But on rock climbs where certain holds are supposedly off limits I gotta say "but where is the colored tape?". You do it your way and I do it mine. If mine is easy I still get the credit for doing the route no matter how much you whine.

[Dwayner]

I've had enough...you've succeeded in baiting at least Dwayner. This post contains three things that truly suck:

1) Bolting: once considered a major stigma, or at least requiring soul-searching decision-making, it is now typically practiced with little environmental concern.

2) Vantage: a once beautiful place ruined; a symbol of the gym-generation who expects grid bolting and considers it the norm, even at a site that consists mostly of basalt columns with ample cracks and unlimited top roping possibilities for the "face climbs". I saw Vantage before it was grid bolted (which makes it an overcrowded gumby magnet) and it was a lovely place. Now it makes me want to puke. If I owned that land, I would ban climbers.

3) Bouldering: If mountaineers are "conquistadores of the useless", bouldering is an utter fool's paradise. It's a relatively harmless pursuit, I suppose, as long as those stupid mattresses don't crush the delicate alpine flora.

I won't even get into the hackey sack thing...although not long ago I was "corrected" by a neo-hippy with a multi-colored rasta knit cap that it's technically a "foot-sack". My bad! Boy, was I humbled!

You want some more bolt talk? You feel that the subject wasn't exhausted last year? Don't get me started!

- Dwayne

[Peter_Puget]

Dwayner - You're coming around. Soon I'll be buying you a beer at a pub club. No talk of "tradition," lack of balls or purity. Just gotta get you into bouldering.

Aloha!

[Dwayner]

Mr. Puget, he say:

"Dwayner - You're coming around."

Dwayner say: From where? I just gave the immediate gut reaction short version to this topic. If you think I've backed down, you are sorely mistaken, my friend.

Puget say: "Soon I'll be buying you a beer at a pub club."

Dwayner say: You are welcome to do that, however, there is one precondition: YOU GOTTA SHOW UP SOMETIME!! In fact, anyone who reads this is welcome to buy me beer.

Puget say: "No talk of "tradition," lack of balls or purity."

Dwayner say: Not at the moment, but there's gonna be more talk of all of the above and then some.

Puget say: "Just gotta get you into bouldering."

Dwayner say: Most unlikely.

shalom, Dwayner

[Peter_Puget]

Dwayner -

Oh Dwayner I didn't mean to suggest that you were backing down. Not sure if I can afford to buy you enough beers to get you bouldering but maybe if everyone pitched in...... And you'll be agreeing with me that many of those traditionally placed bolts are just as or more bogus as those placed by sportos!

[glacier_dup1]

"The whole point of rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1). For me, 2) is the most beautiful and rewarding part of climbing."

Agreed- because no matter if the climb is .9, .11d, or .15a, there are still the problem-solving and efficiency issues that make 2) the valid practice - provided you follow the intended line-

By that definition though (2), aid climbing could be considered contrived, i.e. "Let's load up the bag with tuna and Christian Brothers, beat the bejeezus out of the rock by a combination of pins, bolt and rivet ladders (placed on lead, after all), bathook holes, and haul our sorry asses to the top of that rock by any means necessary, by God! (insert patriotic music and scrolling text of "Manifest Destiny" speech in background). Thus making a "classic" and "natural" line as such routes as the first pitch of Serenity Crack, which probably would have been an excellent 5.11 finger crack, into a hacked out .10a - if only the first acsentionists had decided to leave it alone until they or someone else were strong enough to climb it free.

Back on topic- Yes, squeeze job routes are a great detractor to the aesthetics of an area, and the climbing on the lower walls at Vantage, for example, it's nearly impossible to climb a line without finding yourself using holds on the neighboring climb. And honestly, if a rest avails itself for me a bit off the given line, I'm stepping over to use it. By this, it's nearly impossible to get a 'true' rating - I may find a rest or alternate move, or a hold may break, or the route may not mesh with my strengths - Any of these things could make a route harder or easier than it's "real" rating.

All in all, the realization has to be there that not every bit of rock in the world needs to have a route on it. The reason that classic lines are deemed so it because they tend to follow the path of least resistance to the top of a rock - Outer Space meets this criteria excellently. However, once the classic lines (also usually the easiest) get bagged, then later first ascentionists find themselves either doing harder lines or variations on the existing lines. Once the density of the routes at a location becomes such that squeeze jobs and contrived lines become an issue, then the damage is likely already done. Unfortunately, locally we have a handful of route mass-producers who tend to see one more route squeezed in between two others in the name of giving the increasing population of climbers more options and lower density of climbers per climb - or, in other words, stroking their Manifest Destiny egos to produce that coveted 'FA - XX' as often as possible in the next self-published guidebook. I can choose not to visit an area or climb selected climbs due to their esthetics, ethics, or crowds. This does not make the impact go away. After all, the bolts, the chalk, the webbing anchors are what the land managers and gapers see, and what may initiate a closure or limitations - As other writers here have stated or implied, it is the first ascentionist's responsibility to step outside of their ego and determine if another grid-bolted nightmare needs to mar a wall, or if the call of aesthetics and low impact requires that they refrain from the squeeze-fest. Unfortunately, as many locations in western and central Washington, this did not come to pass.

So where to go from here? Having spoken w/ a couple of the FA producers in the area, I'm pretty sure that a request to lay off the Bosch will have little or no effect. Then we get into the bolt war option, which goes from the wholesale (Vantage anchors) to the petty (DDD). In either case, it just shows to managers that we're a bunch of fractious adolescents, best regulated from without. Do we have the wherewithal, internally, to request a moratorium on new route activities in certain areas to prevent them from becoming a circus? I personally doubt it, judging from the typical correspondence within these forums. Nonetheless, this topic and associated discussion is the first focused discussion I've seen across the board, so there is some hope, although the unbased personal flames still flare ("your are truly an idiot") (and a poor proofreader). So go nude solo, wear your trad hairshirt, dog away in pink lycra, whatever, but have the gumption to speak in a civilized way to the people you believe to be causing the initial impacts. If enough climbers can articulate their concerns to others in the cadre, maybe we can get some sort of consensus, after all.

Waiting for the Devil to buy a snow blower.

[ 03-30-2002: Message edited by: glacier ]